ML20213F014

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to Concerns Expressed in T Devine Re NRC Mishandling of Allegations & Anonymity of Allegers. Policy of Protecting Anonymity & Conduct of Meetings W/Allegers Restated.No Change in Procedures Warranted
ML20213F014
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon, 05000000
Issue date: 09/20/1984
From: Martin J
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To: Dircks W
NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
Shared Package
ML20213E738 List:
References
FOIA-86-197 NUDOCS 8410100307
Download: ML20213F014 (3)
v • d • e


Text

~ '~~

1.  ?

r -

, r w W:.

L - - - . .

, x.

lyN._4 .% ENCLOSURE

=====.

t' 5 a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

{g a s .

REGON V i

Q, N W***%.*e isso MARIA LANE.sulTE 21o WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA 945ss

. SEP 2 0 B84 MEMORANDUM F0it: W. J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations

} FROM: J. B. Martin, Regional Administrator t

l

SUBJECT:

MR. DEVINE'S I.ETTER OF SEPTEMBER 4,1984 Ihavecarefullyconsideredtheconcernsex[ressedandrecommendationsoffered I

by Mr. Devine in his letter to you of September 4,1984. Special attention i has been given to recommendations numbered 4, 5, and 7-10, pursuant to your

! request. The following observations regarding those recommendations are made

'{ in the order presented in Mr. Devine's letter.

'l Rec-ndation 4 has to do with maintaining anonymity of confidential allegers. We recognize and fully appreciate the importance of making every

} effort to avoid compromises of anonymous allegers' identities. It is our fira l policy not to divulge to others the identity of individuals granted confidentiality. We will continue to adhere to that policy.

4 In the case of Mr. Devine's clients, most allegaticas furtished to us since

mid-April of this year have been through the Office of Investigations (OI).
In each case I understand anonymous allegers have been extended a grant of confidentiality by OI. Prior to our release of any information so obtained to
  • the licensee, it is our practice to secure OI review and concurrence in that l.

release. This additional level of review further enhances our efforts to protect the identity of Mr. Devine's clients.

Recommendation 5 suggests prompt referral of evidence or allegatiens of wrongdoing to the Office of Investigations. As Mr. Devine notes, this is our policy In fact, it is our practice as well. Certainly, we have every intention of adhering to this practice in the future. In the case of Mr.

Devine's client-allegers, the suggestion is mooted at least so long as they continue the practice of talking only to OI investigators (in lieu of Region V staff). If Mr. Devine's suggestion signals a possible departure from this practice, we would be pleased to receive allegations directly from his clients. In the latter event, the policy mentioned above would continue in

, effect. I 1

In recomunendation 7, Mr. Devine suggests that allegations received in the Diablo Canyon matter be classified as to safety and legal significance in

accord with standards used in evaluating the significance of quality assurance 4

allegations in Zinumer, Midland, TMI cleanup, and Waterford III. While I cannot commsent on the merit of this suggestion because I was not closely associated with any of the latter licensing or cleanup efforts, it should be

, noted that the* Commission has undertaken development of policy and procedure for handling Inte allegations. This effort has entailed review of the criteria and standards applied by staff in screening and assessing the safety significance of allegations made in the Diablo Canyon matter.

^

N I bih bhN 3/ 1o -

/

XA . - . . .

s. y3 - . . - m p g .

, ,af e ,. ,

, ,1

' ^

i* ..N ' ,

i l

1 l 2 SEP 20 Tro'4 j

p' 7  ;

~

i

- Because of the Commission's prior approval of these standards (as set forth in l Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report No. 22), and in light of the ongoing i Commission effort, I believe adoption of any substantial changes in these

. standards would not be appropriate at this time.

Recommendation 8 suggests modifying safety significant classification of allegations so as to make allegations of wrongdoing have the same legal significance as the technical allegations which they parallel. As a matter i fact an allegation of wrongdoing can take on lesser, greater, or the same

significance than the technical matter it parallels. Judgments as to the 1 i ' significance of any allegations, whether they be of wrongdoing or of a

' I technical nature, must continue to be made on the basis of surrounding facts

]

and circumstances. j l

.i Recommendations 9 and 10 relate to staff communications with allegers.

t Recommendation 9 would have staff confirm its understanding of allegations with the allegers concerned. Recommendation 10 would have staff close with an alleger on the results of staff's investigation before going public with the same information.

, As a matter of policy staff does, where practicable, both confirm its t understanding of an allegation with the alleger, and advise the alleger of

staff's findings following completion of its inspection. Because of the sheer volume of allegations in the Diablo Canyon matter, it has frequently been

! - - - impracticable to provide this kind of confirmation and feedback to allegers.

} The staff's objectives in conducting initial and followup meetings with

' I allegers are'to:

i ,

(1) provide added assurance that the staff adequately understood the concern,

{ and, i

(2) as a courtesy, inform the individual how his concern had been addressed.

The mechanics of implementing the stated objectives may vary with circumstances. In the case of Mr. Devine's client-allegers, this has involved a variety of methods. Our dealings with them have been extensive and in some

, cases complex, in part due to the large volume and repetitive nature of many of the allegations. We have obtained clarification of their concerns through written submittals, interviews, public meetings, and review of other transcribed interviews (i.e., OI interviews). These practices have provided the requisite data for our understanding of his clients' concerns.

The feedback process has been similarily structured. The results of our

efforts have been documented and placed in the public reccrd, and thereby made available to Mr. Devine and his clients. Frequently, they responded to our findings with additional written submittals. In some cases, these included new statements or affidavits jdhich were, themselves, treated as allegations.

1 W

e

, - , - - - ,-,,,r - - - --.e --- - . . , - - - ., . - - , . , , ., - , - - - =,,n,-,_., , , , -,

- - .: - c. ,,. ;y- .:.

u .a.m .

a ~.~. = - -

....l

- . %. . - % i

  • 3
  1. SEP 2 01984 i The feedback process for Mr. Devine's client-allegers was therefore, very 3- formal and in some cases iterative, but above all in full public view. This process had the positive feature of providing a thorough public record, while still accomplishing the objectives state L

J. B. Martin j Regional Administrator 1

l

j e

3 1

g l

i i

I 4

O 6

i I

  • I d

a e *

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20213F014&oldid=3274994"